Sisyphus

One way of looking at it is that we're not protecting the less fit, we're just changing the criteria for fitness. Basically, what is "genetically favorable" is, by definition, whatever helps you pass on your genes. So in modern society, a lot of things which formerly would be very disadvantageous, like poor eyesight, become much less important, because our "environment" is one in which glasses are not hard to come by. Evolution is still at work and we are still adapting to our environment, but our environment has changed and is still changing rapidly, so so too is the direction of our evolution. I don't really think there's a close parallel in any other species, but there are rough parallels in pretty much any one. Other members of a species are almost always part of the environment, and so pretty much every species evolves in such a way that individuals take best advantage of their peers. The more social the animal, the more this happens, and humans have by far the most complex social patterns of all.

Well, I know now that you made me look it up myself, jerk. To save others the trouble, it was: Al Gore, Sr. (D-Tenn.) Estes Kefauver (D-Tenn.) Lyndon Johnson (D-Tex.) Yes, it's that Lyndon Johnson (the president), that Al Gore (father of the VP), and that Kefauver (Adlai Stevenson's running mate in '56). Johnson wasn't asked to sign, being the Senate Majority Leader at the time. So that just leaves the two guys from Tennessee. I don't know what significance that has, either.

That seems very vague. How much more experience? Also, that's only his "main selling point" if you listen to the attack ads. To me his main selling point is the fact that he understands the issues better than his opponent, despite his "inexperience."

It seems like this is a major meme of the McCain campaign. Every ad about McCain includes the (often non-sequitor) phrase "ready to lead," and every negative ad about Obama includes the phrase "not ready to lead." Every talking head supporting McCain seems to work that into the talking points, as well. Clearly, they're working very hard to work this into the national subconscious, so... what does it mean? McCain obviously has been involved in national politics much longer than Obama. Is that all? In another thread, DoG (sorry to put you on the spot) mentioned that he's not voting for Obama because he's not voting for Obama because he's "not qualified to be President yet." What would he have to do to be deemed "qualified?" Certainly other Presidents have had resumes as sparse as Obama's, including some of our "greatest," like Lincoln.

I agree on all points. It's certainly a "cultural" issue, much more complex than "simple racism," which is probably almost extinct. It's still there and it's definitely still playing a large roll, but it's subtle and beneath the surface. We in the liberal northeastern elite (of which I don't deny being a member) have an unfortunate tendency to oversimplify, because that culture is at least the heir of the culture of overt racism. But really, that's almost a red herring. I have a close friend (a real close friend, not a "token friend") from the deepest redneck bastion of Appalachia, and we've had a lot of conversations along these lines. If anything, the cultural differences are even bigger than the stereotypes suggest, both in profound differences in daily life, and in more abstract values. Just comparing notes between how the American Civil War (sorry, the "War of Northern Aggression") is taught in schools in suburban New York vs. rural Appalachia highlights the hurdles - they may as well be talking about two completely different events, with only the names of some of the characters the same (but heroes become cartoonish villains, and vice versa). Even so, what was even more surprising was the amount of common ground between cultures. So much of the animosity is based on misconceptions, and it's really tragic. So much of it is "they think they're better than us and want to tell us how to run our lives" vs. "they're just hate-mongering, gun-toting, Bible-thumping racists." There is an element of truth to both characterizations, but only that, and politicians have for their own advantage intentionally and artificially driven the wedge deeper for almost as long as the country has existed. In all seriousness, I really think we all might benefit from a "intranational student exchange program," so people can see for themselves what we really have in common.

For a layman, you might think of it as sort of a "zeno's paradox" kind of thing. It takes a certain amount of energy to go halfway to C, then the same amount to go halfway from there (half to three quarters), then the same amount to go halfway from there, etc. Hence, you can keep putting in more and more energy forever, and you'll never actually get there. (Note, that is a NOT what it actually does. It's a mathematical simplification, but it's the same general idea. The real equation is in post #2.) Also note that this is relative velocity, e.g. what the accelerating spaceship looks like from Earth. From the perspective of the spaceship itself, you never "gain on" C at all. No matter what velocity you have relative to Earth or anything else, the apparent speed of light will always be the same in all directions. It will always look as if you are standing still, and everything else is approaching C.

I would find this kind of thing incredibly insulting if I was a Republican, inasmuch as it not only insults their intelligence by making ridiculous claims, but also assumes that they're all basically racists by assuming this stuff will scare them into action. Sadly, it's already a best-seller, and the lowbrow political character assassination industry is booming as usual. I'm not saying this is only a right-wing phenomenon, because it definitely isn't, but in this election, have we seen it go the other way on a comparable scale? Have any personal attacks on John McCain become best-sellers yet?

I'm going to say "true but extremely misleading." They're comparing apples and oranges, specifically traditional photovoltaics vs. focusing and concentrating methods. Obviously systems which concentrate sunlight are going to produce more power per unit area on the actual collecting surface. What is needed are cost and efficiency comparisons with the whole system.

So you haven't seen this? Granted, it's not a "jet," and I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "practical," but hey, 30 minutes is a whole lot cooler than 30 seconds.

It's not too mysterious. You're just talking about breeds vs. species. Two breeds of dogs are not analogous to lions and tigers. Different breeds of dogs might look very different because they've been artificially selected for superficial qualities, but genetically the difference is tiny compared with two different true species. Ultimately it's just a matter of scale: different dog breeds are divergent by at most a few hundred generations, and usually much less than that, not to mention sporadic interbreeding along the way. Lions and tigers are divergent by millions of years, and there is not natural interbreeding. That they're able to mate and have anything happen is actually pretty remarkable.

Well really, photons are the only things we can ever see. However, they don't have a size, and they don't reflect off one another.

This can't be stressed enough in these sorts of discussions. The only thing we actually know is that life is possible in the form we see on Earth, and that it can arise on planets almost exactly like Earth. Is life on Earth the way it is out of necessity ("If the Earth was slightly different, life would be impossible."), or is it merely the product of the environment in which it arose ("If the Earth was different, life would be different.")? We don't know. We can speculate with a fair degree of confidence what are the limiting conditions for Earth-like life (although we've been surprised a few times in that area right here on Earth), but we don't know in what other forms "life" is possible, if any, and thus we don't know what conditions it requires. It's all just variations on interpreting the Anthropic Principle.

If I might make a friendly observation, it seems like you're consistently getting way ahead of yourself. Why do you feel it's necessary to make all these "premature assumptions," as you call them? You haven't even given a reason for why you think, for example, "a laser is an interferometer which focuses light to a point where it escapes gravity," so it's impossible for anyone to answer where the mistake is in your thinking, because you haven't told us your thinking. I guess your "mistake" is assuming something that isn't true, or even sensical?

Yeah, statistically a lot of factors seem to be weighed differently at different points in the cycle. And it's not just women that are affected - there was thatstudy that showed female strippers earn twice the tips during their most fertile period as their least fertile.

Oy. Of course there's not really anything the United States can do that won't make things worse, besides voice disapproval towards all parties, and lend support to the mediators (who probably shouldn't be us). The more I read about it, the more that CSM article you quoted seems right. The best that can be hoped for at this point is a return to the status quo. Well, almost. Georgia is learning the hard way that being friendly with the United States is not enough to make us automatically back them up in any conflict, even if its half their own fault. And Russia, very unfortunately, is learning that it can use military force in neighboring countries without consequence. Unless the rest of the world, led probably by the EU, can make sure there are consequences (without escalating the conflict), then I sure wouldn't want to be Ukraine right now.

What's with the psychology of bullying pissing contest? iNow, SkepticLance, how tall are each of you?

Here's another fun fact to throw in the mix: apparently, women prefer different height men at different points in their menstrual cycles. What fascinating creatures!

I think it's pretty clear this isn't really about South Ossetia, which is a tiny region with the population of a small town. It's about Russia's relationship with its former empire. Russia just can't let go, and will take any opportunity to openly bully and manipulate the former Soviet Republics. And at the center of it all is Putin, who has cultivated jingoistic sentiment, suppressed dissent to a degree we've never seen in the West, and built a cult of personality around himself, so that even know when he's technically Prime Minister and not President, he's still running the show in the war. Not that Georgia doesn't share any blame for this. They've behaved almost as badly as Russia, and apparently just for the same spiteful, macho posturing that Russia is engaging in. And now thousands of people are dead, and the war is threatening to spread. EDIT: Or maybe it is about South Ossetia? Their "government" claims 99% of residents are in favor of secession from Georgia. Also, how is it that a non-country the size of Rhode Island and with a population of 70,000 has (apparently) 3000 of its own troops, and 90 tanks?

Yes, the equations would. I was asking if you were. As in, are you sure the moon isn't where it's supposed to be?

Actually, there does seem to be evidence that height significantly affects psychology, which really shouldn't be surprising. It's just not as simple as "the tall man syndrome" or whatever. For example, statistically, taller people make more money, on average about $800 per year per inch. The difference is biggest in careers with the most social interaction, like sales or management, but still exists pretty much across the board. However, the difference is much less for tall people who weren't tall as children and teenagers (i.e., who developed late). The (speculative) explanation being that your height relative to your peers during your most formative years has a lifelong effect on overall confidence. Or something.

Can I buy pot from you?

This is just a guess, but are you sure you're thinking properly about eccentricity? Remember, the moon is 40000km farther away from Earth at apogee than perigee, and that cycle corresponds with the anomalistic month, which is different from either the sidereal or the synodic months. In other words, maybe nothing is wrong?

The gender issues do tend to make things touchy. But Hillary supporters do need to calm down (as do we all), and they are being irrational. Saying so is probably counterproductive towards the cause of reunification, but it's not a (necessarily) misogynist opinion. Are all Hillary supporters women? Does the PUMA movement speak for all women? The answer to both is "of course not," but you would never know it listening to some commentators. And that's coming from both critics and supporters! It seriously makes me wonder how much of this stuff is really just undercover Republicans, intentionally sowing chaos.

It's really the only arrangement that makes sense. Yes, it was a very close primary, and yes, Hillary still has a very important role to play in unifying the party, but that doesn't change the fact that most recent former President obviously trumps runner-up primary candidate. Bill, being the former President and Hillary's spouse and huge presence in her campaign, has perhaps an even bigger role in unifying the party than Hillary herself. If he makes a convincing and inspiring argument at the convention, that could be tremendously important for the Democrats. And if he really wanted to, I think he could do just that, because what is Bill Clinton better at than smoothing things over? That said, the fact that he has yet to really make more than perfunctory gestures to that effect should probably make Obama nervous. Frankly, I would be more worried about how Bill will behave than Hillary. She, at least, appears to be genuinely trying to calm down the "party unity my ass" types.

Yeah, the source of Athenian greatness (its system of government) was also the cause of its all its problems, and its rather spectacular fall. They essentially invented cynical demagoguery, and demonstrated that a mob is capable of greater tyranny than any king. They flared brightly and gloriously, and burned out quickly.